get_station

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description offers no behavioral details beyond the generic action of getting station details. It does not disclose what the return value is, whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or any authorization requirements. With no annotations provided, this omission severely limits the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence. However, it is underspecified for an effective tool definition. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, it omits necessary usage and behavioral information, making it minimally adequate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of zero annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by providing complete behavioral and usage context. It fails to do so, offering only a bare minimum statement. The tool has two optional parameters but no guidance on how to use them together, leaving gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (station_id and name). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. As per guidelines, when schema coverage is high (100%), a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Eve Online station details,' making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_system, get_blueprint) by the specific entity type 'station.' However, it does not elaborate on what 'details' entails, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system or search_stations. The description does not include context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.